WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the ranking Republican on the Senate's labor committee, said in a hearing Tuesday that he would prefer to see the minimum wage abolished.

Alexander's declaration came amid a back-and-forth between a witness from the conservative Heritage Foundation and Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The trio had been debating what kind of impact a higher minimum wage would have on a theoretical worker, and it seemed Sanders wanted to know whether the witness opposed raising the minimum wage or having a minimum wage at all.

"There are some conservatives who do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage," Sanders said to the witness, James Sherk, a labor policy analyst at the think tank.

"Let me jump in," Alexander then said. "I do not believe in it."

The policy debate had been lively, with interruptions all around, and Sanders grew excited at Alexander's interjection.

"So we have a ranking member," Sanders responded. "Alright! There we go!"
Sanders turned to Alexander.

"So you do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage?"

"That's correct," Alexander responded.

"You would abolish the minimum wage?"

"Correct."

"And if someone had to work for two bucks an hour," Sanders continued, "they would work for two bucks an hour?"

Alexander went on to compare a higher minimum wage to a form of welfare. Instead of boosting it, as Congress is now considering, he suggested a common conservative alternative to a federal wage floor -- a higher earned-income tax credit.

"No, I would go for a much more targeted approach," Alexander said. "The question I want to ask, if we are interested in social justice, and we want to honor work instead of getting a welfare check, then wouldn't a more efficient way to help people in poverty be to increase the earned-income tax credit rather than do what we always do here, which is come up with a big idea and send the bill to somebody else? What we're doing is coming up with the big idea and sending the bill to the employer.

"Why don't we just pay for the big ideas we come up with," he continued. "And if we want to create a standard of living for people that's much higher than what they have today, then let's attach the dollars to the job and everybody pay for it. I don't want to do that. But if we were going to do it, then I think that's the way we should do it."

"That's a very interesting discussion for another time," Sanders said with a slight laugh.

Sanders then turned back to Sherk and asked him if he'd support a bill sponsored by Alexander abolishing the minimum wage.

"I believe the minimum wage hurts its intended beneficiaries," Sherk responded. "I do not support the concept of the minimum wage."

Yeah because tax cuts are the only thing that government does to try and control economic activity.

You ever think that my objection to taxes has nothing to do with an economic argument rather then that the rates of taxation (federal, state, county, city) in the US amounts to theft? That the government is stealing money from its citizens (both in taxes and inflation) to pay for things that it shouldn't or have no business doing.

Taking any money from the private sector provides it less money for economic activity. That's just logic and common sense. Taking too much penalizes production and reduces incentives to produce. That's just common sense and logic. His graph omits other vital data.

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

Or because you are a lazy moocher who wants all the luxury society provides without wanting to pay your share.

Either way, this picture makes more sense then the stupid belief that taxes are theft.

No, I object to taxes because if me and friends told you to hand over a percentage of your income and a percentage of the value of your property or we would deny you your freedom you would consider it theft. The morality of the situation doesn't change because you employ a third party, in this case government, to do the thieving.

No, I think that the government does too much at too high a price. The government by the way is not society. I would be more then happy if the government cut back on way it tries to do and what it does, it usually does badly.

Are you aware that correlation does not equal causation—not when there is other data to view that is relevant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

We tried high tax, high spend well before the Carter years and it oversaw the largest increase in the middle class.

That is false. You can't compare the tax system then to now. Not only were there more loopholes, resulting in few being taxed in the end. Those who were supposed to be taxed at high rates were a much tiny percentage of the population.

Furthermore, govt borrows what it can't get away with taxing. In 1955 federal spending was about 14% of GDP whereas today it's over 25%. GDP statistics include govt spending. This is where the money printing presses come in. Also, Govt spending was only about 25% compared to today's rate of approximately 44%.

Historically tax increases are always followed by spending increases. The 1950's is some sort of Golden Age for today's leftists ( outside of the Great Depression ) High tax rates don't mean high revenue either.

The problem is the right relies on the Supply-Siders who goal is to obtain more or equal revenue for the state. "However the goal of lowering taxes should be to decrease the amount of tax revenue collected; not increase it. Since economics is never a science capable of replicating isolated case studies and market economies are enormously complex, one may conclude that the robust amount of growth experienced in the 1950s was in reaction to high tax rates not being paid and hence leaving more money in the hands of the private sector." ~ Miller from the Mises Institute

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

Loopholes operate like tax cuts. Getting rid of loopholes is a tax increase. Lots of tax fraud back then which was easy compared to now.

Quote:

The dishonesty or perhaps ignorance in the tax debate that is going on today is the complete misrepresentation of the pre-TRA86 [Tax Reform Act of 1986] higher marginal rates in the old ’53 code. Sure the marginal rates were insane, but the underlying tax code was rife with loopholes that a good tax planner (I was one) could exploit to get a person’s effective tax rate as low or lower then it is today. Those loopholes are no longer part of the tax code which is a good thing as they encouraged investors to invest in projects that had no economic viability other then the income sheltering effect they created.

What else is ignored in the conversation is the fact that there was a massive amount of tax fraud at all income levels under the old code. It was so bad and so common that most people took pride in telling others how they cheated on their taxes. When I was practicing it was quite common for us to pick up clients that had owned businesses that had grown into large enterprises that cheated extensively on their income taxes sometimes for decades. Usually the only reason this ever got exposed was due to the owners wanting to sell or go public.

Today it would be very hard to get away with significant tax fraud for very long and the current code does not offer very many ways to legally shelter income, so a marginal tax rate of 70% would probably produce an effective tax rate on the top 5% of at least 45-50% which would be more then double double what the effective rate was under the old tax code. Thus, if we were to go back to those insane marginal tax rates, we would be crossing into a level of taxation never seen in this country.

Progs are lying.

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

Taking any money from the private sector provides it less money for economic activity. That's just logic and common sense. Taking too much penalizes production and reduces incentives to produce. That's just common sense and logic. His graph omits other vital data.

Prove it.

Otherwise you are just talking theories.

__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock

Are you aware that correlation does not equal causation—not when there is other data to view that is relevant?

That is false. You can't compare the tax system then to now. Not only were there more loopholes, resulting in few being taxed in the end. Those who were supposed to be taxed at high rates were a much tiny percentage of the population.

This is just stupid. The ultra rich are still a tiny percent rate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Furthermore, govt borrows what it can't get away with taxing. In 1955 federal spending was about 14% of GDP whereas today it's over 25%. GDP statistics include govt spending. This is where the money printing presses come in. Also, Govt spending was only about 25% compared to today's rate of approximately 44%.

Historically tax increases are always followed by spending increases. The 1950's is some sort of Golden Age for today's leftists ( outside of the Great Depression ) High tax rates don't mean high revenue either.

Historically for the GOP, tax increases are issued after they create a deficit, example Reagan. Also, feel free to cite any of the information you pull out of your butt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

The problem is the right relies on the Supply-Siders who goal is to obtain more or equal revenue for the state. "However the goal of lowering taxes should be to decrease the amount of tax revenue collected; not increase it. Since economics is never a science capable of replicating isolated case studies and market economies are enormously complex, one may conclude that the robust amount of growth experienced in the 1950s was in reaction to high tax rates not being paid and hence leaving more money in the hands of the private sector." ~ Miller from the Mises Institute

The biggest increase in government spending has been in the Health Care (Most expensive healthcare in the world!). Military spending is still the highest federal expenditure, which adds to theInterest on the Nation Debt. (Whats the interest on couple billion on the nation debt for two Wars, while we give massive tax breaks to the lowest percent of the population and international corporations? Genius)

Here is another example of you misrepresenting and lying about numbers propaganda style. Or maybe you are just too stupid to recognize that.

You are talking about stupid government spending to increase the wealth of corporate interests.

You have to look at where the money is going and why, not just make broad claims about Government Spending as compared to GDP. (Which is a way to lie anyway, since GDP and fluctuate.)

Lies, omissions and misrepresentations is all you have.

Make a break down between where the money is going, and if we have decreases the percent of, say infrastructure spending.

__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock